What Bush should do...

[Gustaf]

I think Bush problem comes down to this:

A) People think he's good on national security, terrorism, etc but that he's wrong on/bad with the economy.

B) People care about the economy, but not about national security.

Yes, these are broad generalizations, but I think they hold pretty true. So Bush has to either A) make people have faith in the economy OR B) make people worry about national security again. Now, I watched 'Wag the Dog' the otehr day and...OK I won't go there...

The big questions are: what will happen with the economy and what will happen overseas, Iraq etc? Right now the Iraqi resistance is only killing Iraqis, something Bush should be grateful for. I think that the economy is a little instable. The new job numbers were really bad, if unemployment causes a decline in private consumption the road back from recession could become a great deal longer. And THEN, Bush has to face the problem of not having anything to stimulate the economy with. A soaring deficit and record-low interest rates has its disadvantages...

[opebo]

The economy is growing fast, so nothing more can be done about jobs - they'll get here when they get here.  Nobody in government can influence this in the short term.

But your implication is correct, the best thing that could happen for Bush is another terrorist attack, just like the best thing for Kerry is a bad economy.

[StevenNick]

Que sera, sera.  I heard some CNN commentator say the other day that this election, more than any others, will be about issues that are almost completely out of the candidates' control.  I think that's true.

[classical liberal]

yup.

[angus]

right

[Gustaf]

Yeah.

[Gustaf]

Leaving the short posts aside...

A terrorist attack wouldn't necessarily be that bad for Bush, since it would make terrorism a big issue again. On the other hand, it might make people lose confidence in him on that issue.

[zachman]

I don't think it is about issues as much as it is about honesty.

[© tweed]

Another terrorist attack would hurt Bush, Kerry would start looking like the candidate stronger on Nat'l security after there were 2 attacks in 3 1/2 months under Bush.

[emergingDmajority1]

pick a different VP but keep Cheney around in the cabinet, it's the best of both worlds.

[Mort from NewYawk]

I think Bush problem comes down to this:

A) People think he's good on national security, terrorism, etc but that he's wrong on/bad with the economy.

B) People care about the economy, but not about national security.

Yes, these are broad generalizations, but I think they hold pretty true. So Bush has to either A) make people have faith in the economy OR B) make people worry about national security again. Now, I watched 'Wag the Dog' the otehr day and...OK I won't go there...

The big questions are: what will happen with the economy and what will happen overseas, Iraq etc? Right now the Iraqi resistance is only killing Iraqis, something Bush should be grateful for. I think that the economy is a little instable. The new job numbers were really bad, if unemployment causes a decline in private consumption the road back from recession could become a great deal longer. And THEN, Bush has to face the problem of not having anything to stimulate the economy with. A soaring deficit and record-low interest rates has its disadvantages...

Gustaf, I agree with the general outline of your argument but I would modify the parts a bit:

A) A significant number of people (Dems, Reps, and Independents) are open to arguments from Kerry that Bush is not so great on national security (the world is not as safe, we've alienated our friends).

B) National security/terrorism is in the back of everyone's mind, (like a back-burner issue that could move to the front in a moment's notice), which gives it a higher priority for voters than you indicate.

So, a hedge on the state of the economy for Bush would be to:

1. Make as much as possible of the progress in Iraq: takeover of police duties by the Iraqis, which is why they, and not we, are suffering the casualties, and; the Constitutional process, which IS truly historical.

2. Quickly sow the seeds of doubt regarding Kerry's ability to lead decisively and unilaterally in the war on terrorism. Only 20-30% of the country, all committed Democrats, feel the war was truly a mistake, and are committed to future mulitilateralism with the French, Germans, or Russians, or approval from the UN, at any time in the foreseeable future.

[Gustaf]

I think Bush problem comes down to this:

A) People think he's good on national security, terrorism, etc but that he's wrong on/bad with the economy.

B) People care about the economy, but not about national security.

Yes, these are broad generalizations, but I think they hold pretty true. So Bush has to either A) make people have faith in the economy OR B) make people worry about national security again. Now, I watched 'Wag the Dog' the otehr day and...OK I won't go there...

The big questions are: what will happen with the economy and what will happen overseas, Iraq etc? Right now the Iraqi resistance is only killing Iraqis, something Bush should be grateful for. I think that the economy is a little instable. The new job numbers were really bad, if unemployment causes a decline in private consumption the road back from recession could become a great deal longer. And THEN, Bush has to face the problem of not having anything to stimulate the economy with. A soaring deficit and record-low interest rates has its disadvantages...

Gustaf, I agree with the general outline of your argument but I would modify the parts a bit:

A) A significant number of people (Dems, Reps, and Independents) are open to arguments from Kerry that Bush is not so great on national security (the world is not as safe, we've alienated our friends).

B) National security/terrorism is in the back of everyone's mind, (like a back-burner issue that could move to the front in a moment's notice), which gives it a higher priority for voters than you indicate.

So, a hedge on the state of the economy for Bush would be to:

1. Make as much as possible of the progress in Iraq: takeover of police duties by the Iraqis, which is why they, and not we, are suffering the casualties, and; the Constitutional process, which IS truly historical.

2. Quickly sow the seeds of doubt regarding Kerry's ability to lead decisively and unilaterally in the war on terrorism. Only 20-30% of the country, all committed Democrats, feel the war was truly a mistake, and are committed to future mulitilateralism with the French, Germans, or Russians, or approval from the UN, at any time in the foreseeable future.

Mort,

one can always modify things, I was making a sweeping generalization. I agree with your points, but I still think that what I said is true for MOST people, not all of course. i've seen a few polls who all confirm that MOST voters are more worried about domestic issues (health care, jobs, etc) than foreign policy, national security, etc as well as confirming that MOST voters think Bush has handled Iraq, etc well and the economy and other domestic issues badly.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Here's what Bush should do: resign.

[ilikeverin]

...

[Gustaf]

Here's what Bush should do: resign.

This is intended to be a serious thread, you can keep the partisan Bush-bashing for other ones.

[Gustaf]

Another thing: Learn how to read properly!

LOL! Why is he holding it up-side down??? That just HAS to have been edited, it's too good to be true...

[ilikeverin]

Well, if it's edited, they did a durn good job doing it!

[opebo]

Bush should cancel the election.

Just kidding.

[Gustaf]

Bush should cancel the election.

Just kidding.

It's good that you put the 'just kidding' in there, since you're one of the few people I could expect saying that seriously...I suppose you can see that it would enrage people and not work out?

[opebo]

Bush should cancel the election.

Just kidding.

It's good that you put the 'just kidding' in there, since you're one of the few people I could expect saying that seriously...I suppose you can see that it would enrage people and not work out?

Yeah, of course!  As I said I was just kidding.  But it would be an even crazier story than an electoral tie.  Actually an electoral tie coupled with some kind of electors shifting to Kerry would be the only scenario I could imagine anything close to a coup.

[angus]

I just noticed he picture.  very nice.

The problem is that you fail to recognize that:

A is related to B.

People can keep both in their heads.

The economy's trajectory is fixed in the short-term, regardless of who wins.

It is not 1992.

[Gustaf]

I just noticed he picture.  very nice.

The problem is that you fail to recognize that:

A is related to B.

People can keep both in their heads.

The economy's trajectory is fixed in the short-term, regardless of who wins.

It is not 1992.

You think people can keep 2 thoughts in théir heads at the same time? Maybe so, but while they're voting, what with keeping al those ballots and stuff in their hands...maybe that's why that Buchanan incident happened in Florida...

[angus]

Funny thing.  There was a time when one's parents taught one proper shame.  You wouldn't brag about ignorance back when I was growing up.  

[Gustaf]

Bush should cancel the election.

Just kidding.

It's good that you put the 'just kidding' in there, since you're one of the few people I could expect saying that seriously...I suppose you can see that it would enrage people and not work out?

Yeah, of course!  As I said I was just kidding.  But it would be an even crazier story than an electoral tie.  Actually an electoral tie coupled with some kind of electors shifting to Kerry would be the only scenario I could imagine anything close to a coup.

Maybe Bush could do a Putin-like stunt, for the good of the country, needs to ensure stability, time of crisis, treacherous opposition in league with enemies of the people, etc...but I don't think it would work even so...hopefully.

[angus]

I'll try again.  Did you really get a good look at that butterfly ballot?  It was pretty damn clear to me which arrow pointed where.  I understand there are always more undervotes with Democrats than Republicans, what with educational levels, familiarity with english, and the like.  But that's beside the point.  You Democrats exploited those poor, undereducated, confused florida voters.  "This skinny unemployed black woman thought she was voting for Gore, not Buchanan"  Now, we do that sort of stuff all the time.  But it's rather hypocritical not to admit the elitism of the Left as well, wouldn't you say?